Laserfiche WebLink
sign. <br /> <br /> The next remonstrator to speak was Chester Inlow of Meadow Lane. He <br /> <br />again stated he was against a business use in a residential area and that if this <br />was a hobby, as stated before, that a sign would not be necessary. Mr. Hamm then <br />reiterated that property values could he affected by this business and in particular <br />the sign. <br /> <br /> The next person to speak was Raymond Bauer who is a friend of the <br />petitioners. He stated that they wanted a sign and couldn't see any harm in <br />such a sign in that it is not visible by the others neighbors. <br /> <br /> The Board then opened this petition up to a discussion. In particular <br /> <br />the Board had a question regarding the mailbox already in use as a sign. Wendell <br />Thaler questioned the validity of this variance since it was discussed in the <br />earlier request. The Board then reviewing the requirements for a variance from <br />the use standard under Indiana Code 36-7-4-918.4 found that the property values <br />could be affected in an adverse manner and that the public health and safety <br />was potentially in danger due to the traffic problems. In addition they found <br />that the variance did not arise from some condit~on peculiar to the property <br />involved. Based upon this Wendell Thaler made a motion that the variance be <br />denied upon the grounds discussed above, primarily public health and property <br />values. This was seconded by Paul Walters and unanimously carried. <br /> <br /> The next item to come before the Board was the petition of James K. <br /> <br />Vtnton and Connie S. Vinton regarding the property located at 401S. Indiana Street. <br />The variance requested was for the side set-back of the existing building to add <br />a 50 foot extension on the south end of said building which would go to the property <br />line which abuts an alley. A drawing was provided and the Board requested questions <br />or statements from the floor. No parties appeared and the Board proceeded to <br />discuss this matter. Mr. Vinton stated that the property end dropped off approximately <br />eight feet at the end of the property line and that this and the alley provided a <br />form of a buffer. The Board then proceeded to discuss this matter and Paul Walters <br />made a finding that the requirements of Indiana Code 36-7-4-918.5 regarding a variance <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br /> <br />